Sorry, in 1858-59 more tariff revenue was generated by Boston ($5,133,414.55) than by the 10 largest southern ports combined ($2,874,167.11). And New York generated almost 7 times as much revenue as Boston ($35,155,452.75). All figures from "Lifeline of the Confederacy" by Stephen R. Wise.
Lincoln was not blockading Ft. Sumter before the skirmish, but he was setting up floating custom houses to collect taxes and tariffs from ships using the Charleston port.
Fort Sumter was a military fort, nothing more and nothing less. The Customs House in Charleston is, if memory serves, on East Bay Street. Perhaps you can see the wisdom behind putting a customs house miles away from the wharves where the tariffs would be collected but it makes no sense to me. Can you explain the logic to me?
The slave trade would go through New York and Rhode Island; the slaves would be sold South to harvest the cash crops; the South would sell the cotton and tobacco to Europe in exchange for industrial goods they did not produce; the North would collect large tariffs on these exchanges.
Interesting premise, except for one thing. Slave imports, legal slave imports, ended in 1808 through federal legislation as the Constitution provided. Slavery was illegal in New York by 1827. So how could this be fueling the tariff engine you describe in 1860?
I always thought some of the Northern states should have seceded in protest of this violation of their own states' rights.
Interesting, except that, of course, arbitrary secession is not an action guranteed by the Constitution and is illegal. But if it was a 'states rights' issue, it is interesting to note how the south was against states rights in this instance but claim to be all for it in others.
You got me there, Walt. Sorry, that was sloppy history on my part.
Not the only instance, apparently.
"Sorry, in 1858-59 more tariff revenue was generated by Boston ($5,133,414.55) than by the 10 largest southern ports combined ($2,874,167.11). And New York generated almost 7 times as much revenue as Boston ($35,155,452.75)."
The threat to the Union's tax revenue of a free-trade zone between the Confederacy and Europe was not limited to the loss of Southern tariff money, whatever proportion it may have been of total tariff revenue. All of the latter was threatened. European shippers would have significantly shifted the destinations of their exports from Northern to Southern ports. Numerous Northern editorial writers wrote of this threat in an effort to scare up popular support for war from a largely indifferent general population in the North. The port of New Orleans was considered a particular threat because from there the Mississippi would give traders of imported European goods access to an enormous number of potential buyers. Small wonder that the capture of New Orleans was a first priority.
Sorry, in 1858-59 more tariff revenue was generated by Boston ($5,133,414.55) than by the 10 largest southern ports combined ($2,874,167.11). And New York generated almost 7 times as much revenue as Boston ($35,155,452.75). All figures from "Lifeline of the Confederacy" by Stephen R. Wise.
Charles Adams of "When in the Course of Human Events" cites tariff revenues from the 1830's and 1840's of $90 million from the South, $17.5 million from the North, for a total of $107.5 million. As confirmation of this, he points out that these amounts are proportional to the exports of both sides -- $214 million from the South, $47 million from the North.
Fort Sumter was a military fort, nothing more and nothing less. The Customs House in Charleston is, if memory serves, on East Bay Street. Perhaps you can see the wisdom behind putting a customs house miles away from the wharves where the tariffs would be collected but it makes no sense to me. Can you explain the logic to me?
Read my words: I said "floating" customs houses. You make my point: there is no wisdom in having a customs house miles away from the wharves. That's why Lincoln gave the authority to set up ships to collect tariffs out on the water.
>> The slave trade would go through New York and Rhode Island; the slaves would be sold South ....
Interesting premise, except for one thing. Slave imports, legal slave imports, ended in 1808 through federal legislation as the Constitution provided. Slavery was illegal in New York by 1827. So how could this be fueling the tariff engine you describe in 1860?
There was plenty of clandestine slave trading going on. By far most slaves went to Brazil, but a few were sold to the South. Slave trading was a hanging offense, but that sentence was only carried out one time, in 1862, when the Yankee slave trader Nathanial Gordon was hanged after being captured with a boatload of slaves going to the West Indies.
Nevertheless, the North still profited handsomely from slave labor, even without official engagement in the slave trade. That's because they collected tariffs on goods produced with slave labor. Whether you import 'em or just breed 'em, they're still slaves.
>> I always thought some of the Northern states should have seceded in protest of this violation of their own states' rights.
Interesting, except that, of course, arbitrary secession is not an action guranteed by the Constitution and is illegal.
First, the Constitution did not explicitly forbid secession, and therefore by Amendments 9 and 10 this right was retained by the States and the people. The Constitution, at least as originally framed, does not give us rights, it only denies the government certain rights.
Second, it was Abraham Lincoln himself who most eloquently affirmed the right of secession in his July 4, 1848 letter to the New York Tribune:
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world . . . Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit. "
Gosh, old Honest Abe is so eloquent it almost brings tears to my eyes.
Third, the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence affirms the natural right of secession. Do you think King George thought the American colonists had a "right" to secede from Britain? No. But what some politician thinks has no bearing on natural rights.
But if it was a 'states rights' issue, it is interesting to note how the south was against states rights in this instance but claim to be all for it in others.
Absolutely. Very well said. You won't find me defending either Northern or Southern hypocrisy. And there is plenty of it all around.
Hell, it was Massachusetts that threatened to secede four times, first on the adjustment of state debts, second on the Louisiana Purchase by Jefferson (clearly unconstitutional), third during the War of 1812; and fourth on the annexation of Texas. One resolution actually passed the state house. Those wascally webels!
Not the only instance, apparently.
That's the beauty of the net -- you get to forge your ideas under the scrutiny of thousands of other people.